Repeated contract exchanges create a practical tracking problem: which file is current, what changed and which attachments belong to it? Local AI can assist with text comparison. Authorised specialists remain responsible for assessing the legal meaning of terms.
Identify the versions explicitly
Provide two deliberately selected files. A filesystem modification date does not necessarily indicate contractual currency: someone may simply have saved the file again. Record its source, receipt time and status. Explain any comparison between a signed document and a working draft.
For scans, verify recognition quality first. A missing word or misread digit can resemble a counterparty's amendment. Reviewers need access to the original pages alongside extracted text.
Example: an inconsistent delivery date
Suppose a supplier changes a delivery date in the main document but leaves the earlier date in an attachment. The assistant highlights both passages and the inconsistency. It should not decide which date legally governs; its job is to prevent the reviewer from overlooking the conflict.
Separate formatting changes from substantive differences. A line break and a changed amount should not receive identical emphasis. Keep classifications editable because a model may misjudge the significance of reordered wording.
A useful change table
- Location and section heading. - Original and revised wording, preserved accurately. - Related clauses or attachments requiring inspection. - The specialist's comment and review status.
Evaluate omissions, not just summaries
Prepare known test pairs with a missing attachment, changed amount, altered identifier and reordered paragraphs. Track missed substantive changes separately from unnecessary warnings. An elegant summary cannot compensate for one important missed amendment. Restrict archive access by project and role, and save the completed review with the exact versions compared.